On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Howard Chu <[email protected]> wrote: > Brett @Google wrote: > >> FDB (fast db?) - off the top of my head, seems unique enough >> > > Hm, but a bit too generic. Every DB vendor claims their DB is fast. > > Your reply skipped over the underlying question - do we even need to worry > about this and pick a new name at all? I'm guessing your answer is yes, > since you've suggested a new name. >
Not necessarily yes. If the name change is difficult for you, then i lean more toward no, if simple then more towards yes. Sorry for the "fuzzy" logic :P, but : My thoughts for no: 1. The name will affect only the name of the backend module, which is logically a unit under the scope of openldap (and all backends share a prefix), it can't exist by itself. 2. Under the context / aegis of openldap, mdb indicates the function within openldap My thoughts for yes : 1. If the backend becomes popular or leading feature in and by itself, you will want to avoid collisions with other pseudonyms in the operating system / software domain. 2. If you really want to make a name change, even only a little bit, it is best to bite the bullet and change it now, before people start building dependencies upon it. 3. If sometime later the name begins to offend you, by then it will be difficult or impossible to change, as people will build binary packages etc., against it. 4. If it is a small amount of work, you might as well do it. Cheers Brett -- *The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.* * Albert Einstein*
